AI and the Paradox of Self-Replacing Workers | Madison Mohns | TED

As companies introduce AI into the workplace to increase productivity, an uncomfortable paradox is emerging: people are often responsible for training the very systems that might displace them. AI ethics advocate Madison Mohns presents three leadership principles to embrace technological progress while prioritizing your coworkers' well-being — paving the way for a future where AI enhances human potential.

Follow TED!

#TED #TEDTalks #ai

[janalgos]

This talk could have been summarized in one sentence: "Let the AIs replace you, and help them replace others because you'll surely find something else to do once you're replaced"

[petthepizza]

The problem has never been technological innovation but rather who benefits from those innovations. Under our current organization of the economy, such innovations will always be used to displace workers in order to decrease wage related expenses and increase profits. This serves to overall stifle the desire to pursue innovation because it always comes with the implication that it will replace workers. The economy needs to be reorganized in a way where workers have more say in all aspects of the enterprise, whether it be through unions, co-ops, etc.

[gregbors]

Look at “futurist” videos from the 1950’s, predicting an utopian future where everyone would have their needs taken care of with only a ten-hour workweek because of automation. Of course, that didn’t happen, but a lot of people ended up with zero-hour workweeks due to automation, with corresponding zero-dollar paychecks.

[realisticrae]

Really down playing AI capabilities. Corporate greed doesn't care about saving a position for you. Add that with AI, which doesn't have needs or compassion.

[growingrobin]

Somehow this format feels more like a sales pitch than a TED talk…

[raphaelzep]

"I get to go to my trusted team, who i've worked with for years, look them in the eyes and pitch them on training the very systems that might displace them."

[djdedan]

Funny how they never offer up AI replacing management. You know the one occupation that should literally be data driven. Anyway just a thought, have a nice day.

[joewilder]

Perhaps the way to solve the problems is to give everyone equity in the company. That way, even if people are replaced, they end up with greater rewards.

[Zerobob]

AI and machines replacing workers is inevitable. What needs to change is the need for people to work to survive.

We should work towards phasing out jobs and money, whilst phasing in automation of jobs. The only elegant solution is a UBI for every citizen, funded by a robot tax.

[ChrisBarringer]

“Arxhitects of our own progress “

and in turn architect’s of our own demise

[salasart]

Sadly I don't think tech bros are thinking about what they SHOULD do, instead they are focused on how much they COULD or CAN do

[michaelnelson]

When they say don’t worry about it, you should be worried . They just want an easy transition you out replacement in less work for them if your doing your own job elimination

[fetB]

humans have also half the world live under the poverty line and even in the first world is faced with many problems. Also never in our known history, have we faced the kind of technological advancement, which mind you, isnt bad, but it requires a complete rethinking of what kind of economic system should be introduced

[CowboyOdie]

I don't know about AI taking jobs, but a 60-second AI summary of this video would be nice.

[mudgetheexpendable]

Tax the AI jbs at 500% of ten times the salaries of displaced workers. Then use the taxes for UBI.

[Rnankn]

Isn’t the core of the problem, private ownership? The benefits of labour accrue to individuals, but the benefits of capital accrue to concentrations of shareholders. This is a simple consequence of a society that privatizes the benefits of progress. While there has been a delicate equilibrium, the exponential amplification of AI annihilates this balance creating a paradox. I suppose that leaves two options: either nationalize private property into public utilities and public services for social benefit, or democratize ownership so all individuals receive a private benefit from the advances of technological progress. To me they functionally amount to the same outcome, which is sharing prosperity widely, instead of concentrating it narrowly.

[mikebrough]

Re-skilling might allow you to hang on to 25% of your current team but that's an example of the law of diminishing returns. And what about the other 75%?

[Tsukikira]

It's a decent talk, but the real paradox is that modern US companies won't care about training people to take on the new jobs, so what we will see is a mass layoffs, followed by years of companies' complaining about labor shortages, while those with enough money take night classes to retrain for the new positions and those without money just starve and lose everything.

[asmosisyup]

Companies usually take the route of reducing costs over finding ways to utilize what they have better, as it's a simpler process. Why let people work less hours to do the same amount of work when you can force less employees to do even MORE work because they are under more threat of unemployment?

It's a downward spiral that corporations cannot resolve as they have no interest in resolving it, quite the opposite. The only way things will improve is if institutional changes force them to. Good luck with that as long as the Corporations pull the strings on governments. These companies will not invest a single cent in retraining/repurposing the people they discard and its getting really tiresome hearing these ivory tower people from silicon valley who are willfully ignorant of how the world works and how people (especially those in power) work.

[piku]

We desperately need a worker/consumer co-op economy and strong unions.